Apr 11, 2026 03:41 PM
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/journals/et/pr/260409
PRESS RELEASE: Do our norms around sex presentation uphold a constrictive gender regime? In a new article in Ethics, Ophelia Vedder writes that the abolition of hegemonic gender roles must involve the elimination of “compulsory sex-marking,” or the coercive social practice of signaling sexual identity through conventional means like clothes, hairstyles, and personal pronouns.
Ultimately, Vedder writes, sex-marking not only perpetuates heterosexist oppression, but also represents a threat to individual autonomy.
In “Getting Free from Gender: The Case Against Compulsory Sex-Marking,” Vedder writes that sex-marking organizes compulsory heterosexuality by classifying people into two distinctive groups. This system has been defended on the grounds that it eases social coordination by facilitating procreation, demarcating work into “male” and “female” professions, and providing templates for social interactions. However, under this system, one group—women—is typically singled out for subjugation.
Moreover, sex-marking poses an additional harm: “it gives rise to an ascribed identity, funneling individuals into social roles on the basis of unchosen characteristics—namely, the sex to which they were assigned at birth.”
This intrusion upon autonomy is most clearly articulated through the transgender experience, as the perceived deviation from gender norms by trans people often results in severe social repercussions. And it is through the lens of trans liberation, Vedder writes, that a world without compulsory sex-marking must be visualized.
Since “some ways of realizing trans embodiment embrace sex-marking,” is a gender free future one that cannot accommodate trans identity? On the contrary, Vedder argues that dismantling our hegemonic gender regime will involve ensuring that sex-signaling practices are flexible, pluralized, and freely chosen.
The retreat from compulsory sex-marking will lead to more autonomy for trans individuals, and “will open up a greater space of personal freedom for us all.”
PRESS RELEASE: Do our norms around sex presentation uphold a constrictive gender regime? In a new article in Ethics, Ophelia Vedder writes that the abolition of hegemonic gender roles must involve the elimination of “compulsory sex-marking,” or the coercive social practice of signaling sexual identity through conventional means like clothes, hairstyles, and personal pronouns.
Ultimately, Vedder writes, sex-marking not only perpetuates heterosexist oppression, but also represents a threat to individual autonomy.
In “Getting Free from Gender: The Case Against Compulsory Sex-Marking,” Vedder writes that sex-marking organizes compulsory heterosexuality by classifying people into two distinctive groups. This system has been defended on the grounds that it eases social coordination by facilitating procreation, demarcating work into “male” and “female” professions, and providing templates for social interactions. However, under this system, one group—women—is typically singled out for subjugation.
Moreover, sex-marking poses an additional harm: “it gives rise to an ascribed identity, funneling individuals into social roles on the basis of unchosen characteristics—namely, the sex to which they were assigned at birth.”
This intrusion upon autonomy is most clearly articulated through the transgender experience, as the perceived deviation from gender norms by trans people often results in severe social repercussions. And it is through the lens of trans liberation, Vedder writes, that a world without compulsory sex-marking must be visualized.
Since “some ways of realizing trans embodiment embrace sex-marking,” is a gender free future one that cannot accommodate trans identity? On the contrary, Vedder argues that dismantling our hegemonic gender regime will involve ensuring that sex-signaling practices are flexible, pluralized, and freely chosen.
The retreat from compulsory sex-marking will lead to more autonomy for trans individuals, and “will open up a greater space of personal freedom for us all.”
